Rasheed

These are supplements by B. Johnson. They promise to provide all necessary nutrients, minerals and vitamins—in a single capsule/multivitamin. My question is: Is that even possible? Are these capsules legit, or is it a some sort of a scam? https://blueprint.bryanjohnson.com/collections/all-products/products/essentials-capsules https://blueprint.bryanjohnson.com/collections/coming-soon/products/essential-softgels

Thanks for the answers 👍 One more question: If you had to choose only 5 supplements and 3 nootropics for most energy, overall health and mental clarity—what would you choose?

What are your thoughts on Qualia Supplements? By the way, thank you Nilsi—I did not know about Qualia supplements before, they look quite promising 👍

Is watching Infield videos important? Or it is something that’s irrelevant for one’s learning, growth and improvement—something professional dating coaches do in order to increase the price of their courses? Regardless of “yes” or “no”, can you also explain “why” behind your answer as well. Thanks Rasheed

I agree, having wings is great, important and very useful

Oh, I did not know that, I thought it was just a marketing tactic—I am going to start watching Infields, 100%.

Sincere question: How can monarchy still exist in 2023? It is hard to get one's mind around the fact that monarchies still exist in 2023. Yes, most of these monarchies are constitutional, i.e., monarchies don't govern countries, yet regardless of this, having a monarchy is still a deeply unconscious and blatant manifestation of underdevelopment. As having a constitutional monarchy is still not okay, it must not be tolerated. How come people in these countries don't come out and protest against it? Is it way too hard to apprehend that, in actuality, everyone has equal spiritual and metaphysical worth—it doesn't matter their ethnicity, gender, social status, wealth, etc.? Monarchy is the epitome of inequality, stupidity, unconsciousness, and underdevelopment because it is fundamentally based on the premise that some people have more metaphysical or spiritual base worth than others. It is literally based on the false belief that some people, i.e., royal monarchs, are special; thereby, they must live in a lap of luxury, getting paid to exist—being entitled to fame, wealth, and luxury. WHAT A HOGWASH! Everyone has equal worth. Done. This is an indubitable point. It won't be unreasonable to conclude that all monarchs and everyone who supports monarchy are literal fools. These are people with immensely undeveloped minds. Their minds are so underdeveloped that they cannot apprehend how monarchy is a made-up bullshit, and if right now we go ahead and take a random beggar on a street and make him or her a king or queen of whatever royal country, we would be equally correct because the specialty of so-called monarchs is complete made-up bullshit. In the end, monarchy is a violation of the fundamental point of how ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. Since all humans are created equal, nobody shall be denoted as a prince or princess. Such bullshit royal schemes are based on a fundamentally wrong premise—a premise that disrespects humanity and its potential for self-actualization. Anyone who states that some people have a higher base worth, i.e., they have more value (more metaphysical or spiritual value) than others is a fool—a moron whose mind is crippled. Shame on every country that has a monarchy and its people! Fools. Shame on anyone who watches these monarchs and follows their bullshit. Such people are equal idiots as these royal families. Total fools. What do you think? How can monarchy still exist in 2023? What's the cause? What is the reason behind monarchies still existing? How can it end? Will there be a time in human history where all types of royalties will be completely abolished and all will realize that all so-called royals are monkeys, fools, idiots, liars, and con artists who are scamming humanity?

Haha. Again, engaging in emotional projection. To use your own terms, I answered your “pushback” in a manner that you weren’t able to apprehend, due to the failure to distinguish between content and structure. From what I can see, you have trouble with prior distinction. Also, from what I can see you, you have a problem in understanding how Tier 2 deals with Stage Green. I advice you see Leo’s video about structure vs content. Concurrently, I would advice you to read Ken Wilber’s books, the most accessible one is “Brief History of Everything”—that book alone will change your perspective, showing inadequacies of your stance while helping you to apprehend what I have written. Of course, I might be wrong as it is hard to tell what’s best way forward from just few comments. Yet, my intention is to help, not to argue or point fingers in a childish, emotional manner If you don’t want to do any of that and instead remain in closed-mindedness, pointing fingers and engaging in emotional projecting, unable to observe yourself in action, acting unconsciously—you can do so. I wish you good luck Again, thanks for the response.

@Danioover9000 Your answer again proves that you could not understand what I’ve said. I appreciate your point of view but at this point, I think we are wasting time, as you are unable to let go of your perspective in order to entertain a different one, not to mention the emotional projecting onto me, what you, yourself are engaging in. Regardless, thanks for the response 👍

Egalitarianism, the way I am using it in current context, states that “ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL”—it doesn’t state that everyone is literally equal in a sense that there’s no physical difference between Shaquille O’Neal and Joe Rogan, illustrating how there are legit differences that must be honored. Concurrently, it is not flat-land notion, or anti-hierarchy notion that forces one into aperspectival madness (to use Wilber’s term). Egilitarianism that boils down to “all men being created equal” thereby, monarchy must be abolished because it is based on a false premise of someone having a higher metaphysical value than another—does NOT lead to flat land, or aperspectival madness, because as Ken Wilber explained, there exist base, extrinsic and intrinsic values. Egalitarianism suggests that everyone has equal base i.e. spiritual and metaphysical value, no matter the differences in extrinsic and intrinsic values, illustrating how it is immune to flat land, heeps, anti-hierarchy and post-modern stupidity.

I don’t think you understood what I’ve wrote, as you have repeated your previous response, still saying that Soviets were atheists—a conclusion that is a result of failing to distinguish between content and structure—as a result prior conclusion fails to apprehend how Soviets were deeply theistic—structurally, only content was different. Thereby, their failure is an argument for why monarchy must be abolished, not vice versa, as Soviet Union is an example of authoritarianism, monarchy and theism run a mock.

The problem with such an answer lies in a failure to distinguish between content and structure. Using the example of the Russian Monarchy and China's traditional rulership is a flawed example. In actuality, what occurred with such a change was only content-wise different—the underlying structure and level of development behind the content change remained the same. The validity of the prior point lies in the appreciation of how, in 1918, Russia was the strongest Christian country ever—the dominance of Rasputin a couple years before that was a clear example of this. Yet, in two days, an entire country somehow became atheist and secular. Such an answer thinks that Soviet Russia and China were secular, atheist, and egalitarian... Yet, nothing can be far off the mark. Soviet China and Russia were deeply, deeply stage Blue religious. Yes, indeed, they were religious—structurally religious. Concurrently, both Soviet Russia and China were monarchies—structural monarchies. In Russia, the dictatorship of the tsar got exchanged with the dictatorship of the Red Tsar: Stalin—the God of Christians got changed with the God of Lenin. The trinity of Christians got changed by the trinity of Soviets: Marx, Stalin, and Lenin, illustrating how Soviet China and Russia were deeply monarchic and religious; therefore, using them as an example of why monarchy must remain and there is no practical reason why monarchy must be abolished is nonsensical to its core. The failures of Soviet Russia and China are failures of monarchy, anti-egilitarianism, and stage-blue religion—not a failure of secularism and humanism because neither Soviet Russia nor China were securalist and humanistic countries—they were deeply monarchic and theistic, honoring the gods of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, allowing their monarchy to dominate. To say nothing of how the Red Tsar materialized in the form of Joseph Stalin is one of the most blatant examples in the entire history of humanity of the tyranny of monarchy that lasted 29 years straight.

What do you mean by both being inherently fictitious? If underscoring the fictitiousness is moralizing that accomplishes nothing, following such logic, it is okay to return to slavery, as being anti-slavery is equally fictitious as being pro-slavery—come on...

That is not possible. Monarchy represents inequality and anti-egalitarianism. Its a lie played upon humanity. A fiction made up by chimps, run by chimps and perpetuated by them.

No practical reason? Beyond practical reason is more fundamental: ethics, which says that all men are created equal Come on, are you seriously saying that emphasizing point of how: ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, therefore monarchies shall not exist, is egalitarianism run a mock? Are you serious?

I decided to read a summary of Wittgenstein's work—he is considered by certain groups of people to be one of the greatest philosophers of all time and the best philosopher of the 20th century. My impression after reading his main insights and ideas is that he had certain useful insights into the philosophy of language, but overall, it is not at all as huge of a deal as most people make it out to be. Fundamentally, Wittgenstein's main premise is extremely wrong, for which I cannot even consider him a philosopher in the first place. Essentially, he claimed that all philosophical problems arise due to sloppy use of a language; therefore, they must be dissolved (shown to be non-sensical) through Wittgenstein's philosophical therapy—his therapy boils down to analyzing a sentence, concluding how words are taken from "ordinary language," then used in a sloppy manner, creating metaphysical, non-sensical questions that cannot be answered because they are non-sensical. To give an example, let's say one goes to Wittgenstein and asks him, "How to live a great life?" —what would so-called "the best philosopher of the 20th century" answer? The answer would be that this is a nonsensical question arising due to sloppy use of language. Wittgenstein would then start analyzing the question, showing how it is impossible to figure out what one means by terms such as "great", "life" and so on and so forth. What will be the end result? Wittgenstein's philosophical therapy leads one nowhere, and obviously, one asking the question of "how to live a great life" will end up with no answer but some academic twaddle; therefore, all one can do is go on YouTube and start watching the latest sports highlights and 10-second short videos. Therefore, my question is: Did I misunderstand Wittgenstein, or is he actually super-overrated, making his philosophical insights useless to contemplate and study? I don't even understand how his work even got popular, truth be told. Maybe I am wrong...

Why that is very interesting point you have made—I never thought about looking Nietzsche from this angle. Truth be told, after watching lectures about him by college lecturers and reading books that summarized his ideas, conclusion I came out with that Nietzsche was stage Orange reacting to Stage Blue with nice stage Green ideas such as “There are no facts, only interpretations.” You made a great point which nobody who lectures on Nietzsche or writes about him underscores. At least books which I have read and lectures I have listened to, do not talk about that…

100%. Thanks for help. I appreciate it.

I agree with your point—after reading Wittgenstein, I had a sense that he had deeper insights; essentially, that's why he finished Tractatus with: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Even though Wittgenstein might have had deeper insights, this doesn't mean most of his followers and fellow analytical philosophers, "logical positivists and atomists," did so as well. Therefore, telling an individual who has no deeper insight that "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" is equal to telling a person who has no meditation experience that meditation is useless because "truth is already the case...; it is equal to Osho saying that all philosophical questions must be dropped before they are answered. Therefore, it won't be unreasonable to conclude that Wittgenstein unconsciously and unintentionally did a disservice to his followers. Even though Wittgenstein has some great insights, his overall premise still doesn't survive scrutiny if one pushes it enough because, essentially, when it comes to Ethical questions or questions about how to live a great life (+ more other philosophically relevant questions), they simple cannot be boiled down to "the sloppy use of language", which displays how Wittgenstein's arrogant position of "having finished philosophy" after writing Tractatus was simply blasphemous. In a nutshell, the best one can do is read Wittgenstein and sort the wheat from the chaff, realizing how Wittgenstein had deeper insights that he was unable to convey and actually, unfortunately, his philosophical method cannot help one in reaching. Overall, what do you think did Wittgenstein had a positive impact on Western philosophy? or unintentionally, it further put many philosophers who followed Wittgenstein in deeper unconsciousness?

Even though, I have been practicing formal meditation for (relatively) significant amount of time right now (essentially, I am not a beginner), recently I realized how when meditating with eyes closed, I get drowsy and sleepy...What is going on? Realizing this, I essentially started to meditate with my eyes open because this way I remain way more alert and awake (crucial aspects for rigorous effective meditation)—even though this is the case, problem with eyes open meditation is first of all 1). Eyes get really dry. 2). Is doing formal meditation with eyes wide open, staring at one point, correct way to practice? Essentially, former is not that much of a problem but 2nd one really confused me so I decided to ask here: Is meditating with eyes open correct? Is there a major differences between eyes opened formal meditation and eyes closed meditation?

Thanks for help, really appreciate it. Truth be told, I can enter no-mind state while eyes open as well, so I did not find that to be a problem...Especially, when watching a blank wall.

Lately I started spiritual notion of completely escaping suffering and unconditional happiness many Buddhist teachers, Eckhart Tolle, sometimes Osho and others talk about. I have to be honest, I think is bullshit. Calling life's condition 'periphery' and saying that only 'center' matters, life conditions do not matter, as Osho says is bullshit. When Osho went to jail, he wanted hell out of there but if we ask him, 'it was just a periphery'...Unconditional happiness, happiness 24/7, no matter what happens, no matter what time it is or what is going on is impossible, (in my opinion) no matter if one spends perfectly, precisely, rigorously doing a meditation practice for 20 years. Same thing about suffering. How can one completely stop suffering, any pain or discomfort? Completely eliminate oneself out of it even if one perfectly meditates 16 hours a day for next 20 years? Seriously, how? I think because survival won't allow it. No amount of enlightenment can make one transcend survival because these spiritual teachers, Eckhart Tolle, Osho are still human with survival bias. Survival doesn't allow complete stoppage of suffering or unconditional happiness. I think Aristotle is more on point when he says that suffering is inherent to life but one can decrease it by living virtuously and when it comes to happiness, one can become happy by living a virtuous, conscious life. I am not saying I am correct, this is my view, I can be 100% wrong. Lately, I have been contemplating spiritual concepts which I took for granted because actually thinking that all suffering must cease and one must be happy 24/7 in order to be developed, conscious, 'enlightened' is great way to f-up one's life and psyche.

Let’s just take Leo’s example, if we put Osho, the master of masters in a room with 24/7 B-Spears music, won’t he suffer or naked in Siberian winter? Seriously, won’t even Osho suffer? how about claim of unconditional, 24/7 happiness? How are these people selling 24/7 happiness I don’t get it.

Thing is since complete cessation of suffering is not possible, why are these gurus still selling it? Still selling unconditional happiness and complete escape from suffering?

Exactly. It’s unfortunate that they are selling end of suffering and unconditional 24/7 happiness in what can be called Buddhist/spiritual business and marketplace.